They’re Lying about Louis C.K

Go to page

Go to page

Honorary Master

Transgressive’ is good, except when the Left gets offended
Is there any precedent for the outpouring of loathing and contempt from former admirers and peers that landed on Louis C.K. as 2018 ticked to a close? Fellow comics and comedy writers broke an unwritten rule and attacked one of their own, joining the usual Twitterati and culture cops in a rage-fueled online stoning. A bit C.K. had performed at a Long Island night club on December 16, with no intention that a national audience hear it, and that leaked online without his permission, was mentioned on the front page of the New York Post and New York Times. “You’re not interesting because you went to a high school where kids got shot,” C.K. said. “Why does that mean I have to listen to you? Why does that make you interesting? You didn’t get shot. You pushed some fat kid in the way and now I’ve got to listen to you talking?” C.K. also made fun of hypersensitive, scoldy, uptight young people and their pronoun posturing.

The response from Andy Richter, Judd Apatow, and other comedy pros was to label this routine “hacky,” “lazy,” “shallow,” “easy,” and “fishing in a barrel.” (I think that last one is supposed to be “shooting fish in a barrel,” Andy, it’s important not to mangle the clichés you use.) But what C.K. said isn’t hacky. A hack does a bit on how the Starbucks menu is too confusing or how women gain weight after marriage. And anyway, a hacky routine isn’t worth mentioning, much less getting upset about. “Parts of a comedy routine performed in an obscure club two weeks ago bombed” is not news. To mock the Parkland kids in even so mild a way as to suggest they have no expertise on gun control is to venture into a high-voltage area. It’s the opposite of “hacky.” It is in fact “edgy.” The edge in question is the frontier where “things that can be said” meets “things that cannot be said.” It’s where “funny” meets “offensive.” It’s where the audience will laugh while thinking, “I can’t believe he said that.” It’s where most of the top comics have wanted to live ever since Lenny Bruce inspired outrage for “mocking Jackie Kennedy.” (Actually the bit in question suggested that Mrs. Kennedy was guilty merely of being human, of trying to flee the limousine where her husband had been shot, rather than bravely seeking help. This was an edgy thing to say in 1964 but hit home because it was likely true.)

C.K.’s comments on youth weren’t hacky and trite either, because their premise wasn’t a kids-these-days cliché but something close to the opposite. He was pointing out that (first time in recorded history!) kids these days aren’t adventurous enough, aren’t frivolous enough, aren’t freewheeling enough. Somehow every kid these days wants to clamp down on others, aspires to be a cultural vice principal or a language Niedermeyer. That’s funny.

C.K. was not “punching down.” The Parkland kids are national heroes. They have been on the covers of magazines and dominated the conversation for weeks. They led a nationwide march. They logged countless hours of adulatory coverage on the television shows. They starred in a CBS documentary, 39 Days, and in a longish segment in the latest Michael Moore movie. Their views on matters unrelated to having been present at a school shooting are eagerly sought. Their youth isn’t a source of vulnerability but is central to their power in a youth-worshipping culture (that doesn’t much revere dumpy, balding, middle-aged white guys).

Expert Member

Honorary Master

I see Louis C.K. has made the transition successfully and is now identifying as right-wing reactionary 'comedian'. I wish him all the best, it can't have been easy being publicly shamed for forcing women to watch him masturbate. He's really a victim.

Executive Member

Any time you see someone whining about people who whine about pronouns you are guaranteed to find a conservative melting down because their schitty social views have fallen out of fashion.

All of the outrage over political correctness is the same nonsense and the "snowflake" stuff is the very height of irony. We should consider defaulting to "they" instead of "he" to be more inclusive? Won't someone think of the children!!

Expert Member

I see Louis C.K. has made the transition successfully and is now identifying as right-wing reactionary 'comedian'. I wish him all the best, it can't have been easy being publicly shamed for forcing women to watch him masturbate. He's really a victim.

Honorary Master

But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

Expert Member

But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

Expert Member

But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

So is that the benchmark for abuse these days? Asking someone to do something because they admire you is now an abuse of power?

Was that person able to say no? Could they have left if they wanted? If either of those is true how is it abuse? If she said no and he carried on or held her against her will and forced it, that's whole other story.

I'd say asking anyone that you work with to watch you masturbate while you have a position of power over them is an abuse of power yes, 100% correct. Even just trying to put a colleague in that position if they're uncomfortable is predatory, and all the women in the article were clearly not comfortable. It is possible to give consent while still being taken advantage of.

Expert Member

I wish there was some way to subject men to the same effect that the male gaze can have. However I don't know how to put a man in a similar situation where you feel vulnerable, where being undressed by a person's eyes is demeaning, a little frightening, and a lot uncomfortable. I wish I knew how to convey to every single man who thinks that 'just looking' is harmless that women are different to men. We feel things differently, we experience things differently and we are vulnerable to what you do in ways you clearly can't even begin to imagine.

This is the fundamental problem. Men just don't understand how vulnerable women are. And yes blah blah strong women, wait for the obligatory female to chime in about claiming your power and standing up for yourself and how they aren't afraid - BULLSH--T!!! Overcoming it, ignoring it, pretending it isn't there, acting like it isn't there doesn't invalidate the reality that women are more vulnerable than men.

Men also respond to vulnerability differently. On the whole a frightened man gets aggressive. Lots of posturing and assertive behaviour, loud voice, etc. to get the other person back down. Women seldom respond this way, and if you do (refer standing up for yourself) you are met with male aggression which just serves to remind you that you are vulnerable.

I dunno, would a giant hairy gay tattooed trucker dude eyeballing a man with overt sexual intent convey sufficient physical threat combined with sexual intent create enough of a vulnerability for a man to understand how it feels? Probably not, because as I said, men just don't feel vulnerable in the same way, nor do they respond it in the same way.

Let's try this - what makes you want to fight, makes us afraid. And that fear turns your comments, your leering, your sexually loaded looks, your unwanted advances etc. into a whole other level of intimidating. And it makes us feel horrible about ourselves, our self-image, our self-worth. It makes us suicidal, depressed, sick, angry, abused. Irrespective of how you feel about it, accept that this is how we feel and how we react. We aren't you after all.

Expert Member

With enough woman like Zoomzoom in the world, there is going to be a complete segregation between the sexes and if the hysteria keeps up, between the different race groups as well. May I ask what constitutes an "unwanted advance"? When does this status change and when is that signaled to men? Are all men expected to wait for a female to advance on them?

Expert Member

I wish there was some way to subject men to the same effect that the male gaze can have. However I don't know how to put a man in a similar situation where you feel vulnerable, where being undressed by a person's eyes is demeaning, a little frightening, and a lot uncomfortable. I wish I knew how to convey to every single man who thinks that 'just looking' is harmless that women are different to men. We feel things differently, we experience things differently and we are vulnerable to what you do in ways you clearly can't even begin to imagine.

This is the fundamental problem. Men just don't understand how vulnerable women are. And yes blah blah strong women, wait for the obligatory female to chime in about claiming your power and standing up for yourself and how they aren't afraid - BULLSH--T!!! Overcoming it, ignoring it, pretending it isn't there, acting like it isn't there doesn't invalidate the reality that women are more vulnerable than men.

No, the fundamental problem is that you are spoiled. You think that you can wear whatever you want with no regard for the consequences, bemoaning the way that men treat women while being completely oblivious about how men treat other men.

Most women who disguise themselves as men and try to interact in society find out very quickly just how much colder the world is towards men. And so frankly I suspect this is just another case of a woman moaning because she doesn't actually realise how good she has it.

Men also respond to vulnerability differently. On the whole a frightened man gets aggressive. Lots of posturing and assertive behaviour, loud voice, etc. to get the other person back down. Women seldom respond this way, and if you do (refer standing up for yourself) you are met with male aggression which just serves to remind you that you are vulnerable.

Yeah, that's because nobody is going to come to the guy's rescue because he's pretty. His only tool is his physical prowess, and the only way to avoid a fight is to signal that you are strong. Women, on the other hand, can bait men into coming to their defence. If you get rid of the male gaze, this male habit goes away.

I dunno, would a giant hairy gay tattooed trucker dude eyeballing a man with overt sexual intent convey sufficient physical threat combined with sexual intent create enough of a vulnerability for a man to understand how it feels? Probably not, because as I said, men just don't feel vulnerable in the same way, nor do they respond it in the same way.

Right, the sexual leering would simply be seen as another display of aggression, if anything.

Let's try this - what makes you want to fight, makes us afraid. And that fear turns your comments, your leering, your sexually loaded looks, your unwanted advances etc. into a whole other level of intimidating. And it makes us feel horrible about ourselves, our self-image, our self-worth. It makes us suicidal, depressed, sick, angry, abused. Irrespective of how you feel about it, accept that this is how we feel and how we react. We aren't you after all.

You could always try dressing more modestly so as to not draw as much attention to yourself. Take some responsibility for the kinds of social interactions you get, this is something we all have to do, women included.

Honorary Master

No, the fundamental problem is that you are spoiled. You think that you can wear whatever you want with no regard for the consequences, bemoaning the way that men treat women while being completely oblivious about how men treat other men.

Most women who disguise themselves as men and try to interact in society find out very quickly just how much colder the world is towards men. And so frankly I suspect this is just another case of a woman moaning because she doesn't actually realise how good she has it.

Yeah, that's because nobody is going to come to the guy's rescue because he's pretty. His only tool is his physical prowess, and the only way to avoid a fight is to signal that you are strong. Women, on the other hand, can bait men into coming to their defence. If you get rid of the male gaze, this male habit goes away.

Right, the sexual leering would simply be seen as another display of aggression, if anything.

You could always try dressing more modestly so as to not draw as much attention to yourself. Take some responsibility for the kinds of social interactions you get, this is something we all have to do, women included.

Honorary Master

I wish there was some way to subject men to the same effect that the male gaze can have. However I don't know how to put a man in a similar situation where you feel vulnerable, where being undressed by a person's eyes is demeaning, a little frightening, and a lot uncomfortable. I wish I knew how to convey to every single man who thinks that 'just looking' is harmless that women are different to men. We feel things differently, we experience things differently and we are vulnerable to what you do in ways you clearly can't even begin to imagine.

This is the fundamental problem. Men just don't understand how vulnerable women are. And yes blah blah strong women, wait for the obligatory female to chime in about claiming your power and standing up for yourself and how they aren't afraid - BULLSH--T!!! Overcoming it, ignoring it, pretending it isn't there, acting like it isn't there doesn't invalidate the reality that women are more vulnerable than men.

Men also respond to vulnerability differently. On the whole a frightened man gets aggressive. Lots of posturing and assertive behaviour, loud voice, etc. to get the other person back down. Women seldom respond this way, and if you do (refer standing up for yourself) you are met with male aggression which just serves to remind you that you are vulnerable.

I dunno, would a giant hairy gay tattooed trucker dude eyeballing a man with overt sexual intent convey sufficient physical threat combined with sexual intent create enough of a vulnerability for a man to understand how it feels? Probably not, because as I said, men just don't feel vulnerable in the same way, nor do they respond it in the same way.

Let's try this - what makes you want to fight, makes us afraid. And that fear turns your comments, your leering, your sexually loaded looks, your unwanted advances etc. into a whole other level of intimidating. And it makes us feel horrible about ourselves, our self-image, our self-worth. It makes us suicidal, depressed, sick, angry, abused. Irrespective of how you feel about it, accept that this is how we feel and how we react. We aren't you after all.